Three things to note. 1.There is a limited liability of 6m...

Three things to note.
1.There is a limited liability of 6m pounds on damages in the Cleveland Bridge contract.

2. The judge did not find for MXG on all issues and found the conduct of MXG deplorable and found for Cleveland on a number of issues.

3. Cleveland may be broke and as the court case showed was near liquidation.
Cleveland Bridge request permission for appeal
STEEL contractor Cleveland Bridge is to seek permission to appeal against a court ruling which will make it the ultimate loser in a legal battle over the delayed Wembley stadium project.

The High Court judge who made the ruling yesterday refused leave to appeal today, but Darlington-based Cleveland's lawyers said immediately that they would apply to the Court of Appeal for leave.

They conceded that, if appeal moves failed, Cleveland would probably end up having to pay money to the Wembley projects main contractor, Australian construction giant Multiplex.

continued...
Mr Justice Jackson ordered Cleveland to pay 80 per cent of Multiplex's estimated £2m legal costs to date.

Multiplex, which blames Cleveland at least in part for the delays which have delayed development of the new £757m, 90,000-seat national stadium, sued Cleveland for up to £45m.

Cleveland, whose work on the stadium included the iconic steel arch, walked off the site in August 2004 citing breach of contract. It denied liability and counter-claimed £22.6m.

The judge, in the Technology and Construction Court in London, ruled yesterday in a series of preliminary findings that Cleveland was in "repudiatory breach of contract" when it stopped work.

But he said neither side was the outright winner and urged the parties to settle outstanding financial issues.

Today he was told that, in the absence of any settlement or successful appeal moves, the case would return to court next January for argument over how much Cleveland should pay to Multiplex.

In applying for an immediate costs order, Roger Stewart QC, for Multiplex, suggested that Cleveland's financial position meant it "might not be around" for much longer.

Hugh Tomlinson QC, for Cleveland, objected that this was "pure speculation".